High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of

Dr. K. Varghese and Marykutty Varghese v. Local Level Monitoring Committee for Maneed Grama Panchayat

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).Nos. 37696 of 2017 (and connected cases 37708, 37731, 37745, 37767)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.B.SURESH KUMAR
Judgment Date
2017-11-23
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petitions are disposed of by directing the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to consider and pass orders on the applications preferred by the petitioners for correction of the Data Bank, after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position of the properties at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by KSRSEC for issuing their report if directed by the LLMCs. If the corrections are allowed, the petitioners may file applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the District Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer for permission to use the properties for other purposes, and the competent authority shall decide within one month from the date of the LLMC decision, in light of Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182) and related authorities. The orders under KLUL may also enable building permits or numbering of buildings, and, if applicable, the petitioners may request fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act; all these steps are to be completed within three months from a copy of this judgment, and orders shall be passed untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016.
Final Disposition
Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Dr. K. Varghese
  • Marykutty Varghese

Respondents

  • The Local Level Monitoring Committee for Maneed Grama Panchayat, represented by its Convenor, the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Maneed P.O., Piravom, Ernakulam-686 664.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SMT.K.V.RESHMI

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of writ petitions challenges entries in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioners, who own properties that were converted from paddy to garden lands prior to the Act, allege that their lands were included erroneously in the Data Bank, restricting their use for building construction, issuance of permits, and even numbering of constructed buildings. They have approached Local Level Monitoring Committees (LLMCs) seeking correction of the Data Bank entries and corresponding entries in revenue records. The petitions contend that since the conversions occurred before the Act, the Act should not apply to their properties, enabling them to use the lands for other lawful purposes with appropriate permissions. The court notes LLMCs have power to correct mistakes in the Data Bank and to obtain reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) to determine the position at the Act’s commencement. It cites Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep for the pre-Act conversion principle, and Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector and Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma to justify ordered steps under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUL) and related procedures. The judgment directs LLMCs to decide the corrections within three months, with KSRSEC reports, and to consider issuing building permits or numbers if the petitions are allowed, including invoking Clause 6 of KLUL for permission to use lands for other purposes and possible fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization OrderClause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization OrderKerala Land Tax Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that their properties, converted to garden lands before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act), were erroneously included in the Data Bank. They contend the Act should not apply to pre-Act conversions, and seek correction of Data Bank entries and related revenue records. They request building permits and building numbers for already constructed structures, arguing that they are entitled to use the property for other purposes after obtaining necessary permissions under applicable orders. They also seek to invoke Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUL) to permit such use and, if granted, to be issued permits and to have lands reassessed under the Kerala Land Tax Act.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents advocate that the LLMCs must first determine whether the petitioners’ properties were indeed converted prior to the Act, as the Act’s provisions would not apply in such cases. LLMCs are empowered to correct Data Bank mistakes and to obtain reports from KSRSEC regarding the position at the Act’s commencement. If permitted, the petitioners may apply under Clause 6 KLUL for permission to use the lands for other purposes and the relevant authorities should act within prescribed timeframes; building permits or numbers would be issued accordingly and fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act may be pursued where applicable.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep2015(1) KLT 984PositiveCited to support the proposition that pre-Act conversions fall outside the Act’s ambit and thus the Act would not apply to such lands.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector2015(3) KLT 182PositiveCited to justify permission mechanisms under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUL) for use of land for other purposes and related approvals.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma2015(2) KLT 516PositiveCited to support processing of requests under KLUL and timely consideration by authorities.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Dr. K. Varghese and Marykutty Varghese v. Local Level Monitoring Committee for Maneed Grama Panchayat and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** ## **THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 37696 of 2017 (J) -----------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : --------------------------** **1. DR.K.VARGHESE, AGED 84 YEARS, S/O.C.K.VARGHESE, CHANGARAMPALLIL, 15/248, MATTALIPARAMBU, MANDANATH ROAD, NADAMA VILLAGE, EROOR WEST-682 306.** **2. MARYKUTTY VARGHESE, AGED 78 YEARS, W/O DR. K.VARGHESE, --- DO----** **BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI** **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **----------------------------** **THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR MANEED GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MANEED P.O., PIRAVORM, ERNAKULAM-686 664.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-11-2017, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 37708 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** **WP(C).No. 37696 of 2017 (J) -----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.A9-7241/07, DATED 13.11.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE RDO TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.** - **EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.03.2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA.** - **EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER.** - **EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY APPLICATION DATED 04.10.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPIES OF THE SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTIES PERTAINING TO SY.NOS:361/1 AND 361/5 OF MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPTS.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** **Msd.** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **--------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C).Nos.37696, 37708, 37731, 37745 & 37767 of 2017** **--------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of November, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** The case of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that the properties owned by them as referred to in the writ petitions were originally paddy lands, but converted as garden lands several years prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). It is alleged by the petitioners that though the properties were converted as garden lands prior to the introduction of the Act, the properties are included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act and as such, they are unable to make use of the W.P.(c).No.37696/17 & con. cases : 2 : properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that the building permits applied for by the petitioners therein are not being considered for the aforesaid reason. In some other writ petitions, it is alleged that the buildings constructed by the petitioners therein are not being numbered on account of the said reason. According to the petitioners, since the properties were converted prior to the Act, the same should not have been shown in the Data Bank. The petitioners have preferred applications before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries relating to their properties in the Data Banks and the applications preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose are part of the records. The petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to correct the entires in the Data Bank in relation to their properties. They also seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their properties in the revenue records. Some of the petitioners, among others, W.P.(c).No.37696/17 & con. cases : 3 : seek directions to the local authorities concerned to grant building permits applied for by them and some others seek directions to the local authorities concerned to assign numbers to the buildings constructed by them on the strength of the building permits issued to them. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. If the properties of the petitioners are converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the same, as held by the Apex Court in **Revenue Divisional Officer** v. **Jalaja Dileep** (2015(1) KLT 984). But, the question whether the properties are converted prior to the Act as claimed by the petitioners is a matter to be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees at the first instance. It is all the more so since the Local Level Monitoring Committees are empowered to correct the mistake, if any, in the Data Bank. True, if the provisions of the Act would not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the properties for other W.P.(c).No.37696/17 & con. cases : 4 : purposes including construction of buildings, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v. **Sub Collector** (2015(3) KLT 182)]. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to consider and pass orders on the applications preferred by the petitioners for correction of the Data Bank, after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position of the properties at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSRSEC for issuing their report if directed so by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees. Needless to say that in cases where reports have already been called for from the KSRSEC at the expense of the petitioners pursuant to the interim orders passed in the writ petitions, orders shall be passed on the strength of the said reports. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with, W.P.(c).No.37696/17 & con. cases : 5 : within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the requests made by the petitioners are allowed, they are entitled to prefer applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the competent authority viz, the District Collector/the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes, in cases where applications have not been filed by the petitioners for the said purpose and in that event, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order shall pass orders on those applications within one month from the date of production of the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, wherever applicable, along with a copy of the writ petition, in the light of the decision of this Court in **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** _(supra),_ untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 issued by the Government. If the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, the petitioners shall be issued building W.P.(c).No.37696/17 & con. cases : 6 : permits or assigned building numbers, as the case may be, if they are otherwise entitled for the same, by the local authorities concerned. Needless to say that if the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, they will also be entitled to move the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands and if such requests are made by the petitioners, the same shall also be considered by the said authorities, in the light of **Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma** (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month from the date of their respective requests. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** rsr